Private Interests in Parliament

Promotion of private interests using the parliament is worldwide phenomenon. This is happening for ages. Taking money and asking question was the latest nail on the head of the parliamentary democracy. There are sizable number of parliamentarians with heavy business background is well known to the public. They must refrained from using the public resources and positions in promoting their businesses.

The Times of India writes (26 September 2009)


A few days ago, this newspaper reported how MPs who own infrastructure companies sit on a parliamentary panel set up to review delays in the
execution of large public projects with private participation. The matter merits urgent attention since it concerns parliamentary ethics and accountability in governance. Parliament needs to address the issue as soon as possible.

Over the years, the composition of our Parliament has undergone a change. Increasingly, people from diverse backgrounds are entering electoral politics. In the past, professionals like lawyers formed the core of the political class. They saw parliamentary politics as an extension of their role as political activists and an opportunity to contribute to the making of public policy. Few industrialists took the effort or had the time to represent people in Parliament. That has changed. A number of businessmen have contested elections to the Lok Sabha or have got nominated to the Rajya Sabha in recent times. There is no reason to argue that our MPs ought to be full-time politicians. If other professionals, including businessmen, are willing to engage constructively with public affairs, they must be allowed.

However, parliamentarians are expected not just to legislate but also supervise the working of the executive. Parliamentary panels have enormous executive powers and, often, play a decisive role in enforcing transparency and accountability in matters of governance. They have powers to summon senior officials in the government, enjoy access to important files, and influence executive decisions. There is a conflict of interest if the owner of a construction company is part of a House panel that arbitrates in a dispute between the very same company or even a rival and the government. Unfortunately, such examples are not so uncommon now. It's even been said that MPs with business interests lobby to be part of parliamentary panels whose workings have a bearing on their corporate interests.

Parliamentary ethics demand that a clear demarcation be maintained between the private interests of an MP and his role as a people's representative. It is not sufficient that an MP abstains from a House panel when a case that involves his business interests comes up before it. A disclosure clause could help to avoid possible conflict of interest. Such information must be available in the public domain. Clearly, there is a need to have stringent guidelines regarding appointments to parliamentary panels and other executive bodies. MPs could surely use the floor of the House to articulate their expertise on corporate and other matters, but they must keep out of parliamentary committees that could lead to a conflict of interest.